3 ms·

The government has designated ~9,000 people as the most dangerous criminals, "virtually all of whom have criminal records", and uses that to guide how these peo

The government has designated ~9,000 people as the most dangerous criminals, "virtually all of whom have criminal records", and uses that to guide how these people are treated. Based on what I read, you are put on this list without trial, without your knowledge, and without appeal. What could go wrong? The Times devotes a little space to this question, far down in the article, but doesn't seem to see the obvious, major flaws. How many times will we repeat these mistakes before there is enough of a widespread, general understanding of them? Part of the problem is that it's not affecting the people with power in our society. If there's a mistake, we probably won't know about it -- from our perspective, nothing is perfect, but the victim could end up in jail and have their life ruined. If this was a list of government-designated criminal hackers, and it affected your ability to use IT and your job ... EDIT: Many edits

adekok 12y ago
I suspect that this list is really just a database sort over a weighted set of criteria. That sort gets you the "most problematic" criminals by some criteria. After than we have the following: * the person is in jail, in which case being on the list is largely irrelevant * the person is out of jail, but not committing crimes, in which case being on the list is largely irrelevant. They will presumably fall off of the list as they fail to commit crimes * the person is out of jail, but has just been apprehended for committing a crime. For the last situation, the list is hugely important, because it helps you deal with the crime in context.
- hackuser 12y ago
  Do you have other sources of information besides the article? I don't remember much in it that supports those claims.